Bram Stoker made use of the German propaganda against Vlad the Impaler [Tepes]. Vlad had some border problems with the German cities in Transylvania and the Germans used the newly invented press-machine [Guttenberg] to portray him as a "savage". He was cruel and impaled a lot of people [enemies of all kind, including boyars] but Romanians remember him as a cruel-but-just ruler. For example during his reign it is said that nobody dared to steal anything, and the myth goes that you could have a golden cup at a public fountain and nobody would steal it. He built churches and monasteries and helped Mount Athos. He also fought against large ottoman armies with some success [guerilla like warfare]. The whole Vampire thing is invented by Stoker, there is no “folklore” to sustain it, no local myth. To the contrary, he is seen as a sort of people’s hero who punished the “rich-and-powerful” and brought justice.

Is it true or myth that writer Bram Stoker created his Dracula after Prince Vlad of Valaquia?

Bram Stoker borrowed the name from Prince Vlad. I remember being very excited to visit Vlad Dracul's (rather ordinary) house in Sighisoara, Romania. When I returned home to northern England I discovered that most of the action in Bram Stoker's novel takes place in Whitby, North Yorkshire. In fact Stoker was more interested in exposing the Victorian fear of sexuality in his book. The use of the Romanian hero was merely a literary device.

I think the real Vlad was a bit of a sadist though!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bell_the_cat »

Logged

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow. (Mark Twain)

How did this castle come into the provenance of the Romanian royal family in the first place? Was it a "gift" from a grateful nation ? Did Carol I buy it ? From whom, if so ?

Bran castle belonged to Queen Marie, given to her in 1920 as a gift from the local community of Brasov as a reward for her remarkable role in World War I and in Transylvania's 1918 union with Romania. Queen Marie left Bran Castle to Princess Ileana, who married Anton of Habsburg, and today's inheritors are their children.

How did this castle come into the provenance of the Romanian royal family in the first place? Was it a "gift" from a grateful nation ? Did Carol I buy it ? From whom, if so ?

You are probably talking about Bran Castle.

Bran castle

It has little to do with Vlad Tepes. Bran Castle is a border castle designed to control a mountain pass so as to ask a tax to anyone who passes. By the way, Vlad Tepes laid siege to some german cities like Brasov[Cronstad] or Sibiu[Hermanstad] because they didn’t agree on the level of border tax on commerce. So the Germans got back to him.

After WWI and the transfer of Transylvania to Romania the city of Brasov [Cronstad] who owned Bran made it a gift to Missy [Queen Marie of Romania]. She restored and turned it into a livable house. Princess Ileana received Bran as a gift from her mother. She married a Habsburg, so that is why her children who inherited the castle are named Habsburg.

On Vlad Tepes’s cruelty… I remember a documentary about the Inquisition. At that time the similar protestant religious institutions were much more cruel [based on number of deaths and kinds of torture] than the Inquisition itself. In that documentary a historian even said that common criminals used to blaspheme just to be transferred to an Inquisition prison where they were treated better. But history remembers only the successful protestant propaganda and because of that the cruelty of the Inquisition and not its protestant counterparts.

Likewise with Vlad Tepes. There were probably others much more “savage” than him but he had the misfortune to make enemies with people who could portray him as a criminal to the whole of Europe.

When I was in Romania,local guide told us that Dracula means something like ''the son of(not the son in strict meaning,but someone who descended from) Dracul?True?Also he told us that his house in Shaessburg(I don't know correct spelling in Romanian) is ''ordinary'' because his family was there just in exile from Wallachia due to family battles for throne...

vlad got his nickname, 'tepes' (the impaler) after he died. when he was alive he was voyvode vlad, son of vlad dracul. based on his father's name he was occasionally called 'draculea' (which sounds like dracula). dracula was a name associated with him before bram stoker, although that is where the link between the vampire and the real person ends.

i've read on many internet sites that dracula means son of dracul. but i cannot explain it gramatically. maybe that's how people talked in the 15th century. but when family names spread in romania (around the 19th century, before that it was x son of y...) the common ending to the father's name was 'escu' (there are many escus nowadays in romania): popescu, ionescu, stefanescu.i have never heard of 'the son of stefan' turning into 'stefana'. so i don't know exactly how viable the explanation is.

however, dracula does come from vlad dracul, there's no doubt about it. he was called dracula too, on occasion, and when his son ruled he was occasionally called 'dracula the young'. vlad the impaler's brother, radu, was also called 'dracula the young'. the descendants of vlad dracul were called 'draculesti'. there's a whole family of draculas out there . (vlad tepes is the most famous, of course).

about vlad tepes, yes, he was a sadist by today's standards. but please remember that he grew up in a turkish prison. his father was killed by his ally, john hunyade. his older brother was burried alive. he lived in a time soon after joan of arc was burnt alive. he lived in an insecure country in which from 1418 (death of his grandfather, mircea the old) and 1448 (the first time he came to the throne) there were many rulers: mihai 1st, dan 2nd, alexandru aldea, vlad dracul, vladislav 2nd. i think there were more (as i said, i don't have a book of hand) but even if it was only them, that's 5 rulers in 30 years! it was a most insecure time. when he came to the throne, there were 3 other different pretenders out there available for whoever was upset at vlad for any reason. the country was in ruin, it was filled with thieves, beggars, the country people were burdened by heavy taxes set to pay the turkish tribute. the boyars were like kings on their domains.

i am not trying to defend him, but in 6 years he managed to get the country in shape. there was reason to his madness.

about vlad tepes, yes, he was a sadist by today's standards. but please remember that he grew up in a turkish prison. his father was killed by his ally, john hunyade. his older brother was burried alive. he lived in a time soon after joan of arc was burnt alive. he lived in an insecure country in which from 1418 (death of his grandfather, mircea the old) and 1448 (the first time he came to the throne) there were many rulers: mihai 1st, dan 2nd, alexandru aldea, vlad dracul, vladislav 2nd. i think there were more (as i said, i don't have a book of hand) but even if it was only them, that's 5 rulers in 30 years! it was a most insecure time. when he came to the throne, there were 3 other different pretenders out there available for whoever was upset at vlad for any reason. the country was in ruin, it was filled with thieves, beggars, the country people were burdened by heavy taxes set to pay the turkish tribute. the boyars were like kings on their domains.

i am not trying to defend him, but in 6 years he managed to get the country in shape. there was reason to his madness.

Quite right. Vlad Tepes, who did not ultimately survive to propogate a dynasty, had his history written by the victors . . . and he comes off none too well for it.

Compare him to Peter I of Russia, almost three centuries later. As a small boy, Peter saw his mother's relatives tossed off balconies onto upturned pikes in a palace coup. He lived much of his early reign -- which he shared with a mentally-handicapped brother -- under the risk of being supplanted or even murdered by his half-sister Sophia.

When confronted by the Streltsy rebellion years later, he reacted with vicious abandon, personally taking part in the torture and execution of the guards. He was also known to demonstrate personally to his executioners the correct method for beheading. His own son died due to mistreatment -- if not outright murder -- during an imprisonment ordered by his father.

Using such methods, he was able to secure his dynasty and his vision for Russia.